What Pat Buchanan Failed to Mention

In his recent syndicated column entitled “Glimmers of Hope for the GOP,” Pat Buchanan missed the most important reason why Barack Obama was elected and why the Republican Party finds itself on the outside looking in.

Buchanan extols the virtues of a post-2008 election recap book co-authored by NBC News political director Chuck Todd. Buchanan should have disclosed in the body of the column that he is a highly paid contributor to MSNBC and that Chuck Todd is an on-air colleague and, presumably, a friend.

Anyone who watches left-leaning MSNBC knows that Buchanan brings a strong, principled, and much needed conservative voice to the ever increasing chorus of “Obama is the Messiah” that echoes throughout the hallways of the network and within the heads of most of the on-air talent. That said, his paid contributor status may have caused him to tap dance around the main reason for Obama’s victory in 2008: the massive assist given to the now President by an increasingly corrupt, unethical, and activist mainstream media. Of which MSNBC proudly played a leading role.

I just picked up Todd’s book, and nowhere in it could I find a reference to the unethical boost given to Obama by his network or the vast majority of the mainstream media. Nowhere in the book do I see an acknowledgement that basically the top 100 newspapers in our country, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, and even ESPN and The Weather Channel, lean far left. All of them, at one point or another, crossed that ethical line to support Barack Obama. As “one of the most lauded political journalists of our time,” as the promotional material for the book proclaims (and who exactly did that proclaiming?), you would think Mr. Todd would want to offer up an unvarnished analysis of precisely how bias by his network and others played a substantial role in the election of Mr. Obama.

In Buchanan’s column, he cites as one of the reasons for Obama’s victory (from Todd’s book) the “fact” that “an astonishing 75 percent of voters thought the country was headed in the wrong direction,” and that “only 27 percent of voters approved of Bush’s performance as of election day.” Gee, I wonder why?

Could it be the fact that the vast majority of Americans still get their “news” from the corrupt mainstream media and that for almost eight years that same media relentlessly attacked Bush, the Republican Party, conservatives and traditional values? (With Buchanan’s network leading the way.) Could that unprofessional and often orchestrated conduct have played any role in the low poll numbers of Bush and the GOP?